Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism was a spiritual movement in the 1820's/30's and it came about through many authors and new writing innovation. A couple of these transcendentalist authors were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Margaret Fuller. These people mostly believed that every person has a goodness inside of them and that society has corrupted us. Many of their writing styles revolved around the themes of nature and self reliance. I have a few different takes on their beliefs.

I do believe in self-reliance and self-trust, but I also believe that this would only be a possible society in an ideal world. The ugly truth is, that many people reject the idea of trusting their self. I also believe that many people would have a hard time listening to one mans inner judgement(heart) instead of a Jury's justice. I also had a hard time comprehending the righteousness or the fairness of that kind of trial.

I believe that most people have a goodness inside of them. I also believe that society is some what corrupt. I do not believe however, that society corrupts us. If we created society, that is corrupt, then we ourselves must also be corrupt. So if we have goodness inside then society must also have a goodness.

I am somewhere in between being a transcendentalist and not. I believe in self-reliance, self-trust, self-love but, I believe it would only work in an ideal world. I do believe in their new writing innovations; very creative/deep and thought provoking. I do not believe that everyone has goodness in them, sometimes there is just that one person. I also do not believe that all of society has corrupted us, most of it probably has, but society can do/has done some good (ex:saving lives). Transcendentalism isn't for everyone, and I am one of the people who could have stood in the middle of this one.

The Great Gatsby

One part that Baz Luhrmann's version changed was near the end. Gatsby was waiting outside Daisy's house, after she hit Myrtle, and Nick came around and said he would go check on her. When Nick checked on Daisy, Tom's hand was supposed to be on Daisy's hand. They were supposed to look like they have solved a greater problem. Instead Tom's hand was on her back and Daisy just looked sad. The affect that came over me in the book, that the green light was already behind Gatsby, did not come to me while watching the movie at this part.

 Also, Baz Luhrmann's version changes the death scene. I really liked how at first you didn't know if Gatsby was actually dead. It seemed surreal. Of course I was expecting a difference between the movie and the book, but this was a giant difference to me. We were supposed to see leaves swirling through red water and Gatsby was supposed to be staring at the stars. I felt that the swirling leaves and the red water were significant to Fitzgerald's style and Luhrmann changed it. I also felt that Gatsby staring up at the stars had a meaning, there were other places in the book that the stars came into play and made the entire scene seem more colossal. Although I know the movie is never as good as the book, I was surprised that Luhrmann decided to change those two scenes.

Now that I have set aside, what I believe, the major scenes that Luhrmann has changes I can take a look at what he has kept the same. I believe that Luhrmann excelled in the green light scenes. The green light can symbolize hope and that emotion definitely came over in the film. Also, I loved the party scenes, the overall excitement and frenzy of the Gatsby parties was shown in this version. And one last visual that I believe Luhrmann did an amazing job at showing was T. J. Eckleburg's eyes. I got goosebumps when a crazed George Wilson said, "God sees all!". And I kept thinking, "Oh please no!", sometimes you just have to hope that the movie director took pity on the poor man and in the end he truly does live. Unfortunately Gatsby still dies, in the movie and the story.

Bowling for Columbine

Film director Micheal Moore created a persuasive documentary about the shooting at Columbine High School. In his film he addresses the issues with guns in America.

One strategy he included in his film, to make it more persuasive, was sarcasm. At a point in the film a man believed America doesn't kill people. Moore continued in the film to show thousands of murders that America committed playing "What a Wonderful World". He also narrated, "...our country bombs another country who's name we can't pronounce". His sarcastic view shows his viewers the extent of which some Americans are uninformed about their own country's affairs. America does kill people.

Another strategy he uses are personal interviews, which instills emotion into his audience. In his film he interviewed two boys that had disabilities from being shot at Columbine. It is heartbreaking to see their scars and to know they will never be the same as they were before the shooting. They even had remains of the bullets inside of them. Moore used the compassion towards the boys to pressure a big company into not selling bullets of firearms anymore.

Along with using some other strategy's, such as: irony, and shock, Moore created a persuasive film that addresses gun issues in America.

I thought it very interesting when Moore interviewed citizens in Canada about gun issues in America. And that they're responses went along the lines of, "...we wouldn't shoot anybody if we got mad" and "yes we own guns...", "we keep our doors unlocked", "yes I have been robbed before". Then he goes to the leader of the NRA's home in Hollywood and he keeps loaded guns in his locked house, even though he has never been robbed, and has a very large spiked fence surrounding his property with high-tech security.

Maybe the gun issues surround the fact that most Americans store their guns loaded. In case of an emergency the guns can be used quickly for protection. In Japan, who has virtually eliminated shooting deaths, they keep their guns and their bullets locked in different parts of the house. If Americans did this it would be unlikely that accidental shootings would happen and that a child would be able to get a hold of the gun and a bullet. Also, Japan citizens tell their police where the gun is located. This would allow police more control over any situation involving a gun.

Moore's film persuades his audience that America has a gun issue, if children are dying and murdering(which they are) there is an issue. He persuades his audience through the strategies of shock, irony, personal interviews, and sarcasm. Do "Americans have the responsibility to be armed" at the extent of thousands of lives, many children's lives?